To:A. V. LUNACHARSKY

Written:Written at the end of August 1905Published:First published in 1934.

      Sent from Geneva to Italy.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1974,

      Moscow,Volume 34,

      pages334-335.Translated:Clemens DuttTranscription\Markup:D. MorosPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

DearAn. Vas.,

Yourplan for a pamphlet onThree Revolutionspleased me
immensely. I’d drop the reply to Plekhanov for the time being if I were
you—let that enraged doctrinaire bark away to his heart’s
content. To delve specially into philosophy at such a time! You must work as
hard as you can for Social-Democracy—don’t forget that you are committedfor your entire working time.

Asfor the Three Revolutions, tackle this straight away. This subject has to be
dealt with in athoroughmanner. I am sure you could make a success of
it. Describe, in a popular way, the tasks of socialism, its essence and the
conditions for its realisation. Then—victory in the present revolution,
the significance of the peasant movement (a separate chapter), what couldnowbe regarded as complete victory; a provisional government,
revolutionary army, uprising—thesignificance and conditionsof
new forms of struggle. Revolutiona la1789 anda la1848. Finally (better to make this the second part and the preceding
one—the third), about the bourgeois character of the revolution, more
fully about theeconomicaspect, then thoroughly expose theOsvobozhdeniyepeople in all theirinterests, tactics and political intrigue.

Thisis a rich theme indeed, and a militant one, against theIskravulgarisers. Please tackle it at once and take your time over it. It is
extremely important to produce a popular thing on this subject, something
forceful and pointed.

Nowabout the split. You misunderstood me. It’s no use your waiting for me, for
these are different subjects: one isthe history (we shall try to manage that); the other—an outline of their
polemical methods. A literary-critical out line on the subject, let us say, of
“cheap and shoddy literature”. Here an analysis is to be given in a
whole pamphlet of several chapters, with quotations, showing up all this
disgusting claptrap of Old Believer, Martov and the rest in their polemic withProletary, as well as the rehash of this theme in “Majority or
Minority”, etc. Pillory them for theirpaltry methodof
warfare. Make them into atype. Draw a full-length portrait of them by
quotations from their own writings! I am sure you’d pull it off, if only you
collect a few quotations.

Allthe very best.Yours,Lenin

P.S.I have received the article about Kuzmin-Karavayev. Also the 1848 feuilleton.